Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
The real question is why we even bother discussing a curve which was pulled out of the ass of a man who went on to invent a hydralic computer to model the national economy of the United Kingdom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Machine
I think his greatest achievement was to demonstrate the concept of being a really clever idiot.
Economics is a historically flawed and ideological science. But I think it’s getting better and more empirical with time. The scientific method works, economists just have the come down from their high horses and actually follow the data.
That's easy to say when your mortgage doesn't depend on the Emperor's New Clothes being real. Many if not most economists have staked their reputations and networks on pre-empiricism economics.
It's not a simple matter of "whoops I was wrong about one thing". Since the 1970s we've turned the world economy upside-down to cater to billionaires and inequality has skyrocketed. It would be like a priest admitting he reassigned molesters for decades.
OK but you can’t treat economists as a monolith. If you want to shame the people who did that then go ahead, but I think there’s a newer group of economists who are deconstructing the propaganda and seeking truth, and they should be encouraged.
based. and it’s a weird situation because economists deal with money and money corrupts so there are fallible incentives. just see how trump awarded arthur laffer for his negligible contribution just because his model was convenient for rich people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-award-presidential-medal-of-freedom-to-economist-art-laffer-today/2019/06/19/f1505826-9299-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html
Economics is best understood as a priesthood, similar in purpose to haruspicy. Once you make that mental adjustment, everything they do, the types of employment they get, the vile drippings they emit, it all makes horrible, horrible sense.
There is more to economics than Milton Friedman. Marx was a pioneer in economics and leftest theory has been robust in the field from the beginning.
Criticizing soft sciences for their estrangement from mathematics is classic antiintellectualism. The same logic would demand the disillusion of psychology, sociology, and all the critical theories that are the foundation of modern leftest thought.
You miss the point that the soft sciences are being used as an excuse for bad policy. If the soft sciences informed a model for good policy this post wouldn’t exist but instead we have the Laffer curve and trickle down economics.
No one here is calling for a disillusion of economics. It just needs to be used appropriately instead of as a voodoo magic to transfer wealth upwards.
The second graph is a fucking terrible graph as none of the data points correlate with a specific time which would be needed to make a proper comparison to the graph on the left.
If you thought this made sense you are mistaken. OP likely knows fuckall about economics
If it's an attempt at amogus, it sucks too
Alright, why do we need the timestamp on the second graph? They appear to show the same axes and the first graph makes no mention of time-dependence.
first if all rude, downvoted and blocked.
second of all, the graph on the left doesn’t show time either. or technically it does, both do, because they are enrapped in the rate axis (which is change over time).
third of all it’s a meme. stupid idiot OP’s opinion is that economics has historically been used as a tool to oppress and that overly simplified expressions of the economy bolster the manufactured consent for that oppression.
you’re just confused and angry tho so chill.
They weren't talking about YOU.
eh fair enough. i rarely come on here tho and i like just chatting not getting into toxicity even a little anymore. apologies to the other user if u see this i just get so much toxicity on this site that i have to exit conversations early.
OP is the 4chan OP not you
Only tangentially related, but it's often accepted that there is no Nobel prize in economics. There is a Nobel memorial prize in economics (link), but as it was set up after Nobel's death it is in a slightly different category.
Economics is a subset of moral philosophy, which just happens to care a lot about mathematics but is (or should be) nonetheless primarily concerned with questions of morality.
not sure i agree per se but im willing to hear more?
maybe you mean to distinguish between economics as a study and economics as a mode of policy
Anti-intellectualism on Lemmy, it must be a day ending in y.
Calling well-earned criticism of economics anti-intellectualism is using the composition/division fallacy.
Most people's lives have been affected for decades by Chicago School of Economics voodoo nonsense, that's where much modern criticism is aimed.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt
• https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/11/how-economics-became-a-religion
And Jesus fucking Christ, the number of people in here who speak like economics is a field united behind Austrian economics is fucking bizarre.